In article , 
JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:

> ubergeekian@googlemail.com wrote:
> 
> > JNugent  wrote:
> 
> >> Are you any relation to the late President Marcos?
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4448433/Councillor-blocked-am
> bulance-carrying-injured-man-as-it-broke-driving-by-laws.html
> 
> Yes - I've seen that before.
> 
> But that particular "Mr Rosenstiel, who sits on Cambridge City 
> Council [and] had failed to comply with the code of conduct and 
> brought his office into disrepute" must be a different "Mr 
> Rosenstiel, who sits on Cambridge City Council" from the one we 
> know.
> 
> After all, no-one who had done anything so anti-social as to 
> deliberately block the way of an emergency ambulance trying to 
> reach an injured man could *possibly* be so brass-necked as to 
> lecture the rest of us here.
> 
> Could they?
> 
> Or is blocking emergency ambulances official LibDim policy nowadays?

Read the result of the Standards Committee hearing. It was all a dreadful 
misunderstanding. In particular the Standards Board accepted that I did 
not think the ambulance was on an emergency call. But you wouldn't expect 
a newspaper like the Telegraph to report that, would you?

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
>> ubergeekian@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> JNugent  wrote:

>>>> Are you any relation to the late President Marcos?

>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4448433/Councillor-blocked-am
>> bulance-carrying-injured-man-as-it-broke-driving-by-laws.html

>> Yes - I've seen that before.
>> But that particular "Mr Rosenstiel, who sits on Cambridge City 
>> Council [and] had failed to comply with the code of conduct and 
>> brought his office into disrepute" must be a different "Mr 
>> Rosenstiel, who sits on Cambridge City Council" from the one we 
>> know.
>> After all, no-one who had done anything so anti-social as to 
>> deliberately block the way of an emergency ambulance trying to 
>> reach an injured man could *possibly* be so brass-necked as to 
>> lecture the rest of us here.
>> Could they?
>> Or is blocking emergency ambulances official LibDim policy nowadays?

> Read the result of the Standards Committee hearing. It was all a dreadful 
> misunderstanding. In particular the Standards Board accepted that I did 
> not think the ambulance was on an emergency call. But you wouldn't expect 
> a newspaper like the Telegraph to report that, would you?

I'll be very direct: I wouldn't expect any sane and law-abiding person to 
deliberately block the path of any ambulance, anywhere, at any time.

Anyone who does/did so, deliberately, should (and, I hope, would) be rejected 
as a candidate by any sane party.

But thanks for the confession.